Narcissists try to engage by hook or crook.
They're best left wallowing in their own self-centered world.
It's sad that this one is a pox on iWindsurf.

Mo, could you please bring back some of your world-class cartoons? Or maybe a new one?

Now more than ever, Slinky deserves to see them.
____

p.s. Your website is sorely missed.
.

Pueno, thanks for your kind words. After 16 years of creating and maintaining a website that had more than 1400 pages of windsurfing and kiteboarding content — only one of which was cartoons — I decided its time was over.

I toyed with the idea of recoding the site to make it more "web 2.0/interactive" but my desire to continue waned.

If you're interested in a particular cartoon (they're all alive and well) I'm happy to share. Anything new would require the "narcissist in our midst" to provide fresh material — something he hasn't done in years._________________mo

Steve, NW30 ... you guys can see the BS the Leftards are undoubtedly spewing about this character assassination issue; I can't, and it's not worth looking it up. Does ANY of it deserve a 103rd response from me on this topic alone, or is it just the same endless, repetitive, and redundant mis-attributions, misquotes, twisted words, and outright lying about external facts and about what I've said that got them killfiled in the first place? Have they asked even ONE valid question or raised even ONE valid issue that I, coboardhead, the VA, and others haven't asked and answered countless times? Given the number of times I DID look, in vain, for sanity and honesty before and shortly after throwing their asses of my computer, I very seriously doubt anything has changed.

Is there anything new you or the other adults here need answered about this issue?

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. has a message for residents in his jurisdiction: You can't rely on him anymore. You need to arm yourself.

On Friday, the nominally Democratic sheriff issued a recorded public safety announcement on the radio and on the Web that encouraged residents to take their lives into their own hands.

Here's the full transcript:

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

Crime is relatively rare in Clarke's jurisdiction: In 2010, the Sheriff's Department reported two burglaries, nine robberies and zero murders. (Preliminary data from 2012 were not available, and it's not clear if the department submitted its crime statistics to the FBI for 2011.)

Also rare are justifiable homicides in the U.S.: About 260 private citizens lawfully killed someone committing a felony in 2011, or less than one case per every 1 million people in the nation.

Clarke's announcement has nonetheless tapped into a raw current in American politics over the role guns play in a civil society, which has occasioned some slightly less-than-civil discourse.

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's office said in a statement.

That remark drew this retort from Clarke: "Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Barrett was calling 911 to report a fight when the suspect batted the phone out of his hand and began to beat him, according to a police report; the suspect, Anthony Peters, claimed to have a gun, but didn't.

Clarke has been Milwaukee County's sheriff since 2002 and, running as a Democrat, easily rolled to reelection. His remarks, however, have earned him praise among conservatives, and he has occasionally flirted with the tea party.

In the days after the December shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Clarke again raised the proverbial call to arms in an Op-Ed article on a tea party website.

In those remarks, Clarke said gun control advocates were "sheep" and called for "an armed tactical trained officer or security officer in every school and public place [theaters, malls, etc.] in America."

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban. The bill would ban more than 150 firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. There is no expiration date on Feinstein’s bill.

Critics of such a ban on semi-automatic rifles are already arguing that the government is showing its hypocrisy by essentially saying they are good “personal defense” for them, but not for American citizens. When civilians own semi-automatic rifles, they somehow become “assault weapons.”

That being said, it is reasonable for the Department of Homeland Security to request these rifles as they are indeed effective personal defense weapons. The agency is tasked with keeping Americans safe from those who wish to do the country harm, and its officials should be equipped with all the tools they need to do so effectively.

But what about Americans who want to keep themselves and their families safe from threats? Is a semi-automatic rifle unacceptable for a civilian’s “personal defense” in his or her home? According to some Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Feinstein, it appears the answer is yes.

Just last week two students in Rochester, N.Y. scared off a pair of home intruders by simply brandishing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. One of the students said he believes the weapon saved their lives.

Editor’s note — The author of this post, Jason Howerton, discussed this story with TheBlaze Editor-in-Chief Scott Baker on Monday’s BlazeCast:

President Obama has called for stricter federal gun laws to combat recent shooting rampages, but a review of recent state laws by The Washington Times shows no discernible correlation between stricter rules and lower gun-crime rates in the states.

States that ranked high in terms of making records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System also tended to have tighter gun laws — but their gun-crime rates ranged widely. The same was true for states that ranked poorly on disclosure and were deemed to have much less stringent gun-possession laws.

For example, New York, even before it approved the strictest gun-control measures in the country last week, was ranked fourth among the states in strength of gun laws by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, but was also in the top 10 in firearm homicide rates in 2011, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile, North Dakota was near the bottom in its firearm homicide, firearm robbery and firearm assault rates, but also had some of the loosest gun laws and worst compliance with turning over mental health records to the background check system.

Analysts said the data underscore that there are no simple or easy broad answers to combating gun violence, which is a complex equation involving gun-ownership rates, how ready authorities are to prosecute gun crimes and how widely they ban ownership.

Gary Kleck, a criminology professor at Florida State University, said in an email that a simple comparison between states’ strength of gun laws and gun-crime rates doesn’t say much about the effects of the laws because the exercise fails to control for other factors such as gun-ownership rates.

In an exhaustive analysis with data from 170 U.S. cities that did control for such factors, Mr. Kleck and fellow researcher E. Britt Patterson concluded that there was no general impact of gun-control laws on crime rates — with a few notable exceptions.

“There do appear to be some gun controls which work, all of them relatively moderate, popular and inexpensive,” the researchers wrote. “Thus, there is support for a gun-control policy organized around gun-owner licensing or purchase permits (or some other form of gun-buyer screening); stricter local dealer licensing; bans on possession of guns by criminals and mentally ill people; stronger controls over illegal carrying; and possibly discretionary add-on penalties for committing felonies with a gun.

“On the other hand, popular favorites such as waiting periods and gun registration do not appear to affect violence rates,” he said.

Clearly it would be best to equip every man woman and child with as heavy a military hardware as possible.
Then we would all finally be safe. And settling scores when you are drunk would be easy and final.
That is the NRA marketing plan.think of all those profits....
Or we could do as the Obama admin wants and let everyone keep their guns but tighten up on all those laws as this guy suggests.

This says it all. They even had a guy selling a rocket launcher in the crowd! Guns last hundreds of years. How do you register 300,000,000 weapons? Age and maturity are the only way to regulate this thing. Mandatory gun safes, and background checks also.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum